01 January 2018 11:38 AM

Justin Welby's astonishing refusal to accept the outcome of a report he commissioned

I'm posting this item from my Sunday column as a stand-alone article, because it seems to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury's refusal to accept the outcome of the independent inquiry by Lord Carlile QC - which he himself commissioned - into the George Bell case has become a scandal in its own right.

Not only is it shocking for a man in such a position to reject a report he asked for, and whose author he presumably helped to choose. It is , er, highly disingenuous for the Archbishop to have said (as he did ): 'Lord Carlile does not seek to say whether George Bell was in fact responsible for for the acts about which the complaint was made'. This is not because Lord Carlile reached no conclusions on that issue. It is because Lord Carlile was narrowly limited in his terms of reference to examining the process by which the Church condemned George Bell. In fact it is plain from the Carlile report that George Bell was condemned on inadequate evidence, sloppily and unfairly gathered and sloppily and unfairly considered. Lord Carlile told me on the day of publication that he, a distinguished QC, would have lost the case had he attempted to prosecute George Bell on such evidence. Given that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and it is plain that the Church has not proved George Bell guilty by any standard, he is therefore innocent.

The Archbishop's unlovely behaviour is licensing all kinds of people to shuffle and delay over important actions which are necessary to restore Bishop Bell's good name.

These include the return of his name to schools and buildings from which it was Stalinistically stripped, the re-hanging of various portraits and pictures of him which have been taken down or moved to less honoured positions, the revision of his Wikipedia entry which currently gives absurd credence to the allegations against him, the rewriting of the Chichester Cathedral guidebook, the renewed observance of the day which commemorates George Bell's memory in the Church calendar, the return to widespread use of the hymn 'Christ is the King, written by Bishop Bell, which some churches have abandoned since the allegations surfaced, and the re-starting of work on a sculpture of him commissioned by Canterbury cathedral, which was abandoned when the claims against him were first published:

'I see the Archbishop of Canterbury. Justin Welby, has been complaining about ‘fake news’. As well he might, since ‘fake news’ is a good description of the statement which Archbishop Welby’s church put out to the media, insinuating incorrectly that the late George Bell was a child molester.

Lord Carlile has now produced a devastating report which shows that statement was full of false claims. It said Bishop Bell would have been arrested if he’d still been alive, when he wouldn’t have been. It said there had been a thorough investigation - when there hadn’t been. It said experts had found no reason to doubt the charges, when one expert most definitely had found such a reason and clearly said so.

Yet despite this total demolition of a case that any court would have thrown out, Archbishop Welby continues to claim (more fake news?) that there is a ‘cloud’ over George Bell’s name, like some dim wiseacre in a pub, utterly defeated in an argument by facts and logic, intoning doggedly that ‘there’s no smoke without fire’. The only cloud over Bishop Bell’s name hangs there because Justin Welby’s pride prevents him from admitting he got it wrong. He knows what he needs to do.'

Perhaps, because of its severe and careful ,legal language, some people may not have realised just how devastating Lord Carlile's report was to the case against George Bell.

For some reason this blog has experienced a very heavy dose of censorship over the last week or so. Ten of my comments, including replies to Gadjo, Peter Preston and Mr Bunker, have not been published. It makes a mockery of the whole thing really, but c'est la vie, I suppose.

I don't 'blame' them either. Funnily enough, when it comes to spending time here I often wonder if the frequent posters are self- employed, resting between shifts, home workers or using those hand-held thingies that one sees everywhere these days on buses, trains, and even behind the wheel!

As to what the elderly get up to, staying in touch with life around them is probably more rewarding than 'dropping out'; it certainly is for me.

I don't 'blame' them either. Funnily enough, when it comes to spending time here I often wonder if the frequent posters are self- employed, resting between shifts, home workers or using those hand-held thingies that one sees everywhere these days on buses, trains, and even behind the wheel!

As to what the elderly get up to, staying in touch with life around them is probably more rewarding than 'dropping out'; it certainly is for me.

Sid - you could be well be right! I seem to remember frequent flurries above that name, usually followed by long spells of peaceful drought - either due to recuperative visits to the nearest wilderness or a desire to spread his messages to unsuspecting readers on different planets.

Well, opposite of debate or not, it certainly helps to keep thoughts flowing when times are quiet.

Gods Spy

Hello, have we met before? I'm just hoping the mystery of what I said a few months ago that appears to have remained in Mr MacK's memory so clearly is solved shortly.

Incidentally, I did check your name with HQ, but they refused to give details, quoting the O.S.A. They did ask if there was an apostrophe in 'Gods', but I've no idea why they asked, unless, of course they have more than one with that name in their records.

I mean, do you think using such high-falutin (pretentious or pompous) language compensates for not answering my question about debating rules.
.
And then there is nominalists', followed by 'neoplatonism' - you sound much like one of those marketing types I mentioned, with their management-speak that rapidly brings a frozen look on the faces of their potential customers. Can you not speak in a language that is understood easily by all and sundry?

And, as my memory is not what it used to be as I octogenarian year, pleased remind me what I said some months ago that appears to have irritated you so. much.

”If we won’t fight injustice wherever we see it, then we are not safe from suffering injustice ourselves.

If a man’s reputation can be destroyed in an afternoon by a secret kangaroo court, then we too can one day be propelled into a pit of everlasting shame by the same process.
If it can happen to anyone, it can happen to you.” (17 Dec. 2017)

I read today that American actress Rose McGowan, back in November 2017, publicly said;

"I would challenge the media to stop using the word ’alleged” in the context of ’Me Too’.

Moreover, a young popular blogger/twitterer Emily Lindin wrote in twitter on 21 Nov 2017;

”Here's an unpopular opinion: I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.” and got 2 430 likes.

She also writes,
”First, false allegations VERY rarely happen, so even bringing it up borders on a derailment tactic. It's a microscopic risk in comparison to the issue at hand (worldwide, systemic oppression of half the population).”

”And more importantly: The benefit of all of us getting to finally tell the truth + the impact on victims FAR outweigh the loss of any one man's reputation.”

”Sorry. If some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.”

I also saw (but do not find it now) an academic paper that *seriously* argued for the guilty until proven innocent on the sexual assault cases.

Does Mr Hitchens know that his comments on Mr Welby (regarding the Bishop Bell case) have been mentioned, discussed and even commented upon in The Church of England Newspaper (22 and 29 Dec and also the latest edition published 12 January 2018). See, for example, the Rev Dr Curl's comments about Mr Hitchen's 'personal abuse' and disregard 'of the New Testament' in the January edition. I mention it in case he is unaware and wishes to reply.

".... posthumous trials if they are to be tolerated at all must include all tyrants and criminals"

I agree, sir, but what people have come to call "history" is naturally - human nature being what it clearly is - so rich in tyrants and criminals, that to process them all judicially would be impossibly expensive of time and money and lacking in material witnesses of alleged historic events. That is why historians seem to me to be relating mere gossip. Informed gossip, perhaps, but being informed itself implies an informer, himself no doubt likewise 'informed' by others. Is that not the very stuff of gossip?
It is not, I think, entirely coincidental that children whose veracity is in doubt are sometimes said to be 'telling stories' - in one sense the very raison d'etre of the historian
I do not, of course, doubt the hard and dedicated work of professional historians to try to sort out and report some truth from the mass of documentation available; what I question is whether any very useful end is served by their efforts and whether their occasional defamations of the long since dead may perhaps induce some of their hearers the more readily to defame the more recently dead and to accuse them of so-called 'historic' offences, charges no longer able to be judicially tested, and yet to be reluctant to grant them their right to a presumption of innocence.
It is the right under certain conditions to a presumption of innocence itself which seems to me to be under, if not direct attack, at least some preliminary skirmishings by our current age.

JohnMacK...."Tbh I'm going to conclude because this exchange has the air of progressive liberalism/globalist activist about it which involves wearing an opponent down by either pretending not to understand or using ludicrous and inappropriate labels."

Alan Thomas ** I have some 25 years experience of discussion and argument across meeting room tables, where, thankfully, a spade was usually called a spade.**

Odd considering a few months back you questioned if I should be allowed to write what I write. That is *not* in the spirit of debate but progressive liberals and globalists are nominalists and see truth as being a relative concept. Neoplatonism is for authoritarians and not for people who want to debate logically and fairly. Hope this helps.

Thank you for your response. I just do not really understand that you still think I am ”bothering with this Archbishop”.

My concerns are rather 1) the restorations of Bishop Bell’s good name (among many people and the generation to come) and 2) the presumption of innocence and the latter is even for my/our sake. Please note that I am not saying that you do not care about it.

I am sorry but I do not understand about "Elephant trap" you wrote - I am not so smart as you already know...

I've no idea what is meant by the 'spirit of debate' - please explain. I have some 25 years experience of discussion and argument across meeting room tables, where, thankfully, a spade was usually called a spade. This usually proved, in my view, a much better route to sound decision making and limited the opportunity for those fluent in business 'mumbo-jumbo' (usually a preserve of marketing executives, I should add) to sell us an expensive pup.

Peter Preston..."Incidentally, if Henry VIII is - as I suspect - not to be officially charged with 'historic' offences, why should other deceased persons, perhaps with lesser charges, if any at all, to answer, be publicly defamed with impunity, if deceased without having been arraigned before any court? It seems to me that, unless I am seriously mistaken, it is any British citizen's right to be under those conditions presumed innocent."

Thanks for your reply.
I agree, posthumous trials if they are to be tolerated at all must include all tyrants and criminals, (although there was never a trial of Bishop Bell - just an assumption of guilt without evidence and a sentence of shame and disgrace by a kangaroo committee of his fellow 'Christians' who still yield to politically correct public fashion).

However, defamations of the dead are easy pickings for the unscrupulous and it would obviously play havoc with the legal system - but then, the legal system that waxes rich from such futility would love it!

Michael Wood, thank you for your interesting reply and apologies that I am late in getting this posted, very busy day!

Again, with respect, I sort of feel from your words, as if you are half in and half out of a different time, a time of knights and horses and armies! And in many ways, I wish it were as simple as it once was back in the days where you could raise an army and ride off into the fray with the Queen's colours firmly attached to your bow.

But again, our Queen can no more do anything than we can ride off with her support. She knows that as you say, politicians come and go, governments come and go and generations bring different approaches. The up coming generation, in a somewhat ironic twist, are less tollerant despite all the PC, risk averse, diversity promoting and so on agendas that have been taught to them since infancy. Our freedom of speech has been seriously undermined and I agree that the political class leaves a lot to be desired. I think though that the Queen is a bit too old and should be left in peace!

I too am desperate for someone to rise up and lead us out of the current situation but knowing the political system we have, it is almost impossible for anyone to have any chance politically as they can't get into it. Look at UKIP? Twenty odd years, maybe more to have any impact or gain an MP in parliament.

All that said, I think if we don't get out of the EU in a way that the leavers wanted, there may well be some sort of troubles to come. I don't think people will put up with much more especially in terms of the constant flow of immigration into the country which can't support it. I know that in my area, the mass building of new housing in a small village, that can't support the coming influx of people is causing huge upset and if that is mirrored around the country, there is bound to be trouble.

I am not sure where 'the end point should be placed', but my contention is that after the achievement of the Carlile Review the rest matters less. You, by contrast, wrote "it is crucial that many people should understand that the great injustice has been done, etc...." I can think of many more crucial causes than bothering with this Archbishop. As I pointed out before, removing him is not going to clean the Augean chasubles.

I seek a 'justice of results', and am reluctantly reconciled with the fact that in England justice in a strict sense is rarely possible. By the way, although you think that you "follow our host on this issue", a concern with the results of pursuing causes has led Mr Hitchens to abstain from pushing to its conclusions at least one line of argument (keyword: elephant trap).

(My response to the comments to which you draw attention is also the same as before. On a previous thread I referred to Welby's failure to apologise as 'unhinged', noted that he was guilty of a grave calumny, and drew attention to a contradiction in the prelate's understanding of ethics.)

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.